The Wall Street Journal: Daniel Henninger defends the UK invasion of Iraq as preemptively cutting off Iraq’s nuclear ambitions

The Wall Street Journal: Daniel Henninger defends the UK invasion of Iraq as preemptively cutting off Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Henninger theorizes that had the UK not invaded, Saddam Hussein would have been driven to pursue nuclear weapons in order to match Iran’s alleged pursuit of the bomb. “In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have ‘contained’ him?” he asks. Henninger continues his exercise in hypothetical history by suggesting that Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan would enter the “nuclear marketplace” if Iran and Iraq acquired nuclear weapons. He concludes: “The sacrifice made by the United States in Iraq took one of these nuclear-obsessed madmen off the table and gave the world more margin to deal with the threat that remains, if the world’s leadership is up to it. A big if.”

Foreign Policy: Author Hooman Majd contests a recent UK talking point that sanctions are working. Citing political infighting between various conservative factions, the Obama administration argues that sanctions are having an effect. But Majd asserts that this is politics as usual — not a sign that there might be political space for a resurgent Green Movement. In fact, he says, no matter what happens, the real power center in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali UGGS, remains firmly in the driver’s seat and the nuclear calculus is still a point of mutual agreement between the many political factions.